I went ahead and added it as unixbench5 for now. Given the additional requirements for v5, I'm also going to submit a patch to the v4 test to fix the parallel make issues.
Unixbench5 patch here: http://test.kernel.org/pipermail/autotest/2011-January/008135.html - dale On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Gregory P. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Dale Curtis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> After working with the unixbench team, I managed to get the parallel make >> fixes pushed upstream. There's now a new version of unixbench available, >> 5.1.3 with those fixes. >> However, there's a hitch in that, as of version 5.0, the unixbench >> launcher has been rewritten in perl. I wasn't able to find any other perl >> scripts which were directly called by tests in the project, so I thought I >> would ask here. What's the project policy on perl tests? >> - dale > > well, when taking tests from somewhere and integrating them with runners > into autotest you don't really get much choice. > if perl is a problem on anyone's target test platform and they want to run > this test, a suitable perl interpreter can be added to their client/deps. > It might be nice to do the unixbench 5.x upgrade by creating a unixbench5 > client test instead of replacing the existing one. > -gps >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Gregory P. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> "yes please" on the update. :) >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dale Curtis <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Coming back to this, we've discovered unixbench is not parallel make >>>> friendly. While debugging the issue, I noticed the 4.0.1 unixbench version >>>> we're using in Autotest is pretty old; with the latest being 5.1.2. Before >>>> I >>>> go about fixing the current version, I'm wondering if we should update to >>>> the latest version. The latest version has supposedly been updated to >>>> handle >>>> multi-CPU systems better. >>>> http://code.google.com/p/byte-unixbench/ >>>> >>>> Comments? Concerns? >>>> - dale >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Amos Kong <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Eric Li(李咏竹) <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Thanks for the quick response. Please take another look. >>>>> > >>>>> > Index: client/common_lib/utils.py >>>>> > =================================================================== >>>>> > --- client/common_lib/utils.py (revision 4747) >>>>> > +++ client/common_lib/utils.py (working copy) >>>>> > @@ -1165,6 +1165,16 @@ >>>>> > system('%s %s' % (configure, ' '.join(args))) >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > +def make(extra='', make='make', timeout=None, ignore_status=False): >>>>> > + """ >>>>> > + Run make, adding MAKEOPTS to the list of options. >>>>> > + >>>>> > + @param extra: extra command line arguments to pass to make. >>>>> > + """ >>>>> > + cmd = '%s %s %s' % (make, os.environ.get('MAKEOPTS', ''), extra) >>>>> > + return system(cmd, timeout=timeout, ignore_status=ignore_status) >>>>> > + >>>>> > + >>>>> > def compare_versions(ver1, ver2): >>>>> > """Version number comparison between ver1 and ver2 strings. >>>>> >>>>> Looks good for me. >>>>> ACK >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Autotest mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Autotest mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list [email protected] http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
